At 10:28 AM 10/19/00 -0400, Ian Jacobs wrote:
>While the objection has been registered, I'll remind you of
>Jon Gunderson's very convincing argument why Level Double-A was
>considered sufficient: It is not a P1 requirement (i.e., "one or more
>groups of users with disabilities will find it impossible to access
>the Web") that the documentation include beneficial -- but not
>critical -- accessibility features. The definition of a P3 requirement
>in WCAG 1.0 is
>
> "A Web content developer may address this checkpoint.
> Otherwise, one or more groups will find it somewhat
> difficult to access information in the document.
> Satisfying this checkpoint will improve access to Web
> documents."
aloha, ian!
i do recall jon's argument, but it obviously failed to convince me that
double-A compliance is sufficient, especially in light of the importance of
documentation to users with disabilities, hence my objection...
this isn't a P2 or P3 issue -- it is a P1 issue, and if my objection holds
up the document, that is an unfortunate, but necessary, evil, as incomplete
and inaccessible documentation it is one of the most consistent complaints
from users with disabilities, and more stringent requirements in this area
are one of the most common requests that i field from users with
disabilities as soon as they discover that i am actively involved in WAI
work...
not a politic answer, i realize, but this isn't about politics--it's about
accessibility...
gregory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
CARNIVOROUS, adj. Addicted to the cruelty of devouring the timorous
vegetarian, his heirs and assigns.
-- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory J. Rosmaita <unagi69@concentric.net>
Camera Obscura <http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/index.html>
VICUG NYC <http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/vicug/>
Read 'Em & Speak <http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/books/>
--------------------------------------------------------------------